>So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a >reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then >used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia.
Any media that uses Wikipedia for its fact checking is not "reputable." I would call it "lazy" media. Too lazy to contact the Minister's office to get the correct information. This is particularly interesting in light of this week's Time magazine cover story about "How to Save Your Newspaper" http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html "Time" tries to distinguish its brand of "reputable media" from the rest of the internet rabble to make the case that we ought to be paying for their Web content. Of course, if they get their facts from the Wikipedia, their content should be covered by copyleft and they can not legally charge for it. Ha, ha, ha! ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
